From my perspective: I was born a Jew. I rarely participate in Jewish rituals. I don’t really believe in the religion. But I’ll be a Jew till the day I die, and anti-Semites hate me as much as they hate any Hasidic rabbi.
I don’t feel that I “chose” to be a Jew.
Within memory, like in March of this very year, the Catholic Church reaffirmed that it will continue to ban priests from blessing same-sex marriages, probably not a view that will attract it more members in most western countries. At the same time, Catholic leaders in certain African countries getting more extreme on condemnation of all LGBTQ matters does seem to be locally popular.
In the general sense - people always ignore the qualifiers when it suits them, all the world’s major religions have a history of splitting off sects, denominations, and subsets becoming ever more extreme. Recent history also tells us that they thereby gain devout followers while more tolerant groups lose active adherents.
This is one reason for advocating more church/state separation rather than less. The convoluted history of the application of the First Amendment in church/state issues shows that religion is often used as a club against outsider groups, often to great public agreement. That religion needs special protection in secular matters seems to be similar to the plaint by some whites that treating blacks equally is actually preferential treatment. (Or, similarly, that gender equality is harmful to men.)
Being a protected class gives them enormous benefits in statuary and case law. It is not equivalent to simply stating that individuals should not be judged for their personal preferences. I can remember when long hair was deemed a sufficient cause for being fired, barred from entrance, or even beaten. Tattoos and piercings made hiring almost impossible within recent memory. Antiwar and pacifist opinions have a long, miserable history in this country.
I’m highly in favor of people being allowed to make individual choices in peace, definitely including religious ones. I’m much more dubious of how laws can define or enforce the protection of all individual choices, some of which are not sound public policy. Or should being antivax and antimask be a protected class?
I don’t think religion or political affiliation should be a protected class. Perhaps some in-between level of scrutiy should apply — I don’t think we want a world where an employer can fire you for being a Muslim, a Rastafarian, or a Witch, or for being a registered Green, or Republican, or Socialist Workers Party member. Not per se. But I think it isn’t unreasonable for an employer to inquire insofar as you openly identify as a Muslim, whether you have any problem with the LGBTQ rights that are affirmatively embraced in this workplace, and to pose the same question to an employee wearing a GOP elephant pin. Or if you have made statements identifying yourself as a Rastafarian or a Witch, to inquire about whether you are comfortable abiding by the drug policy that prohibits ingesting marijuana even during off-hours, in the state of Alabama where it is still illegal.
But there are ways to do this that have nothing to do with the person’s religion. For example, the requirement of the job can be to treat all people the same, regardless of sexual orientation. To deny someone a job because they cannot adhere to that, even if it’s because of their religion, has been repeatedly upheld.
Yes, I feel these posts point out there are practical obstacles to making political orientation a protected class. Religious beliefs and practices are fairly well codified, so discrimination against someone based on their religion may be more clear cut, while people might argue that political orientation can cover a vast range of beliefs that are constantly evolving. Things that are not necessarily political such as stances on vaccination have become heavily politicized, so if political orientation was a protected class, would people have the case to make that vaccine passports discriminate against people based on their political positions? I’d say no, not any more than it would be discriminating based on race if difference races had vastly different rates of vaccine uptake - but there are certainly a warehouse full of cans of worms that could potentially be opened by making political orientation a protected class.
Being Jewish is as much as an ethnicity as Judaism is a religion, though - I feel like it’s more race than religion that anti-Semitic people base their hatred on.
I’d very much be in favor of making political affiliation a protected class because the Supreme Court has held in in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek that gerrymandering for political purposes is OK. If political affiliation were a protected class, I don’t think this could be done.
Can you explain this in more detail? I just do not understand the logic here.
Without expressing an opinion on the question itself, I find it interesting the different kinds of reasoning people use to answer a question like the one(s) in the thread title.
The Court has held in those two cases that gerrymandering to benefit one party or the other is not unconstitutional. However, gerrymandering to hurt a protected class is unconstitutional. So if political affiliation were a protected class, I’m assuming partisan gerrymandering would be unconstitutional.
Ah, now I understand. Thanks.
I tend to think that one’s political affiliation is already covered under the 1st Amendment. Political affiliation is an inherently public thing, and effectively an exercise of your free speech. Just being a Democrat or Republican in your head alone, or in the voting booth is an inherently private thing. Nobody knows but you, unless YOU put it out there and demonstrate it. And that’s already protected as much as it needs to be. Put another way, your political affiliation is part and parcel of you exercising your right to free speech, which is already protected.
Religion is different- it’s often what defines you as a member of a specific community, or being a member of a specific community often raises the chances of you being of a specific religion. And it’s also often contentious in a way that politics isn’t. Religion is centered around one’s relationship with the divine and your definition of the world, and have a way of defining themselves as the ONLY right way, and all the others are WRONG. There’s no multi-partisanship or coalition building in religion. As such, it’s tailor made for dominant religions/groups to discriminate against other religions for reasons that in civil society seem absurdly wrong. So that’s why religion needs to be a protected class- it’s more than just the exercise of free speech, unlike political affiliation.
I agree in general with your post. I just wanted to point out that the 2.2 million Hindus in the US believe there are many paths to the truth. 75,000 Quakers and a slew of broad-minded religious people (some of whom are unaffiliated) also don’t fit this description. Similarly, some atheists fit this description, and some don’t.
I’m not disputing that most religious people see their beliefs as the only right way. I just want to point out that it’s not inherent in religiosity.
If political parties were protected classes then the KKK Party or the NAMBLA Party would be free to operate in the open.
To answer the OP, it may already be a protected class when necessary.
I think that if it ever came down to it, like if a company refused to hire Republicans or if a college only admitted Green Party members, that the person would have standing to sue that those practices violate freedom of association as protected by the First Amendment. Whether or not they’d win is another question and if they didn’t then maybe Congress would legislate ‘political party’ as a protected class.
Neither is a political party, but they are free to operate in the open. The KKK holds marches, for example. Operating in the open does give them the right to do illegal things.
They and other criminal organizations would quickly form political parties. The Constitution would allow political parties to be a protected class if passed through the correct channels but it would not allow only some political parties to be protected.
Being a protected class doesn’t give them any rights to do illegal things. It just means they have to be treated like others.
It would give them cover to meet and organize, otherwise illegal under RICO statutes. Gerrymandering is basically the reward for winning elections. The only way around it is to have fully independent commissions draw the lines.
I’m fine with having a fully independent commission draw the lines.
But the KKK can meet and organize I don’t really know about the other group.
I could be wrong but while the KKK is allowed to meet and organize now they are subject to be surveilled by the FBI. Were they a party and a protected class I dont think that would be legal.